1.
Lack of Cost-Effectiveness of Preoperative Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents and/or Iron Therapy in Anaemic, Elective Surgery Patients: A Systematic Review and Updated Analysis
Avau B, Van Remoortel H, Laermans J, Bekkering G, Fergusson D, Georgsen J, Manzini PM, Ozier Y, De Buck E, Compernolle V, et al
PharmacoEconomics. 2021
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
OBJECTIVES For anaemic elective surgery patients, current clinical practice guidelines weakly recommend the routine use of iron, but not erythrocyte-stimulating agents (ESAs), except for short-acting ESAs in major orthopaedic surgery. This recommendation is, however, not based on any cost-effectiveness studies. The aim of this research was to (1) systematically review the literature regarding cost effectiveness of preoperative iron and/or ESAs in anaemic, elective surgery patients and (2) update existing economic evaluations (EEs) with recent data. METHODS Eight databases and registries were searched for EEs and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting cost-effectiveness data on November 11, 2020. Data were extracted, narratively synthesized and critically appraised using the Philips reporting checklist. Pre-existing full EEs were updated with effectiveness data from a recent systematic review and current cost data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were expressed as cost per (quality-adjusted) life-year [(QA)LY] gained. RESULTS Only five studies (4 EEs and 1 RCT) were included, one on intravenous iron and four on ESAs + oral iron. The EE on intravenous iron only had an in-hospital time horizon. Therefore, cost effectiveness of preoperative iron remains uncertain. The three EEs on ESAs had a lifetime time horizon, but reported cost per (QA)LY gained of 20-65 million (GBP or CAD). Updating these analyses with current data confirmed ESAs to have a cost per (QA)LY gained of 3.5-120 million (GBP or CAD). CONCLUSIONS Cost effectiveness of preoperative iron is unproven, whereas routine preoperative ESA therapy cannot be considered cost effective in elective surgery, based on the limited available data. Future guidelines should reflect these findings.
PICO Summary
Population
Elective surgery patients with anaemia (5 studies).
Intervention
Intravenous iron.
Comparison
Erythrocyte-stimulating agents (ESAs) and oral iron.
Outcome
The economic evaluation on intravenous iron only had an in-hospital time horizon. Cost effectiveness of preoperative iron remained uncertain. The three economic evaluations on ESAs had a lifetime time horizon, but reported cost per (QA)LY gained of 20-65 million (GBP or CAD). Updating these analyses with current data confirmed ESAs to have a cost per (QA)LY gained of 3.5-120 million (GBP or CAD).
2.
Effectiveness of Iron Supplementation With or Without Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents on Red Blood Cell Utilization in Patients With Preoperative Anaemia Undergoing Elective Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Van Remoortel H, Laermans J, Avau B, Bekkering G, Georgsen J, Manzini PM, Meybohm P, Ozier Y, De Buck E, Compernolle V, et al
Transfusion medicine reviews. 2021
Abstract
Patient Blood Management (PBM) is an evidence-based, multidisciplinary, patient-centred approach to optimizing the care of patients who might need a blood transfusion. This systematic review aimed to collect the best available evidence on the effectiveness of preoperative iron supplementation with or without erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) on red blood cell (RBC) utilization in all-cause anaemic patients scheduled for elective surgery. Five databases and two trial registries were screened. Primary outcomes were the number of patients and the number of RBC units transfused. Effect estimates were synthesized by conducting meta-analyses. GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was used to assess the certainty of evidence. We identified 29 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 2 non-RCTs comparing the effectiveness of preoperative iron monotherapy, or iron + ESAs, to control (no treatment, usual care, placebo). We found that: (1) IV and/or oral iron monotherapy may not result in a reduced number of units transfused and IV iron may not reduce the number of patients transfused (low-certainty evidence); (2) uncertainty exists whether the administration route of iron therapy (IV vs oral) differentially affects RBC utilization (very low-certainty evidence); (3) IV ferric carboxymaltose monotherapy may not result in a different number of patients transfused compared to IV iron sucrose monotherapy (low-certainty evidence); (4) oral iron + ESAs probably results in a reduced number of patients transfused and number of units transfused (moderate-certainty evidence); (5) IV iron + ESAs may result in a reduced number of patients transfused (low-certainty evidence); (6) oral and/or IV iron + ESAs probably results in a reduced number of RBC units transfused in transfused patients (moderate-certainty evidence); (7) uncertainty exists about the effect of oral and/or IV iron + ESAs on the number of patients requiring transfusion of multiple units (very low-certainty evidence). Effect estimates of different haematological parameters and length of stay were synthesized as secondary outcomes. In conclusion, in patients with anaemia of any cause scheduled for elective surgery, the preoperative administration of iron monotherapy may not result in a reduced number of patients or units transfused (low-certainty evidence). Iron supplementation in addition to ESAs probably results in a reduced RBC utilization (moderate-certainty evidence).
